Roman Abramovich Thread

[ChelseaFanUK 1,014]

I am almost certain the shortlist will be one of the following

1.     Ricketts/Griffin  -   Boehly/Wyss/goldstein/Clearlake capital     -     Coe/Broughton     -     Candy/Korean lot

 

2.   As above but swap Candy for Centricus and possibly add an unknown bidder

 

Still think Boehly wins, 99.9% certain of it

[ChelseaFanUK 1,014]

The issue with the Griffin bid is this, people like CFCDaily on twitter are really going after him and digging up his unpleasant remarks from the past, but they forget the father is not involved in the bid. At all. It's his son[s]

The cubs may not be well run, but they'll have Ken Griffin backing them here, and he has deep deep pockets.  Easier to run a club with huge financial ability... Do i want them? Not really.  Will i care if they take over? Meh, might be a bit wishing it was someone else, but talk of protests and that shit by the likes of CFCDaily and them, is fucking ridiculous

Edited March 22, 2022 by ChelseaFanUK

[ChelseaFanUK 1,014]

12 minutes ago, DDA said:

So The Ricketts are on of the favourites but yet couldn't run a bath when it comes to American Football? 

Fantastic.

They must know they're shortlisted IMO as why else would the father be wanting to come visit the Chelsea supporters trust and CPO?

 

Would make no sense unless they knew something before the public and media

[Fulham Broadway 16,920]

Shortlist to be drawn up today.

Have a feeling we will be a US franchise. Go Super Blue Bears !

[Fulham Broadway 16,920]

MARTIN SAMUEL: It's money first, glory second for the US owners circling Chelsea (just ask United and Arsenal)… 

[Superblue 6,372]

5 hours ago, ChelseaFanUK said:

The issue with the Griffin bid is this, people like CFCDaily on twitter are really going after him and digging up his unpleasant remarks from the past, but they forget the father is not involved in the bid. At all. It's his son[s]

The cubs may not be well run, but they'll have Ken Griffin backing them here, and he has deep deep pockets.  Easier to run a club with huge financial ability... Do i want them? Not really.  Will i care if they take over? Meh, might be a bit wishing it was someone else, but talk of protests and that shit by the likes of CFCDaily and them, is fucking ridiculous

We're all going to have our own preferences but essentially we have to trust the Raine Group and potentially Roman or his trusted aides to choose who is the most suitable owner to take our football club on.

@OhForAGreavsieset out a great list yesterday of things which should really be 'base' requirements for new owners. 

Anybody who is prepared to guarantee something along these lines I'm willing to give a chance to.

Anyone buying off Roman is going to find it incredibly tough in my opinion to win over the fans. However there should be some initial goodwill from just getting us out of these sanctions, especially with the season run-in and the potential to still get our hands on a couple of trophies. Whomever it is that gets us just needs to run with that goodwill and momentum.

[Superblue 6,372]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

MARTIN SAMUEL: It's money first, glory second for the US owners circling Chelsea (just ask United and Arsenal)… 

The issues that United and Arsenal have found are nothing to do with money in my opinion, it's management.

The Glazer's and Kroenke's shouldn't need to be regularly present at games or at the forefront of the club. Not many football owners are. We haven't done too bad despite Roman barely turning up to watch a game in the last 4 - 5 years. But Roman put a structure of people in place to run the club well in his absence. 

This is what Arsenal and United have lacked.

Arsenal's net transfer spend over the last 5 seasons is over £100m more than ours and United's is well over double. They do spend money, they just haven't spent it well. Arsenal are starting to show some signs of buying what are turning out to be some decent players alongside some good young academy players, and rightly or wrongly they've given full backing to the manager to make decisions on his squad and transfers. Some big names have been bombed out in the last couple of years that they haven't been afraid to write off to be fair to them.

I've mentioned previously, for the sum we're looking like being purchased for, I just cannot see how a new owner won't be prepared to continue investing in the club and squad to keep us competitive and challenging for trophies. A drop off could cause a significant impact to the club's value. What is important is when we do spend money, spending it well and getting the right people and players in. We ourselves are guilty just like United and Arsenal of wasting a lot of money on player transfers but our management structure and squad are both better as a starting point.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

21 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The issues that United and Arsenal have found are nothing to do with money in my opinion, it's management.

The Glazer's and Kroenke's shouldn't need to be regularly present at games or at the forefront of the club. Not many football owners are. We haven't done too bad despite Roman barely turning up to watch a game in the last 4 - 5 years. But Roman put a structure of people in place to run the club well in his absence. 

This is what Arsenal and United have lacked.

Arsenal's net transfer spend over the last 5 seasons is over £100m more than ours and United's is well over double. They do spend money, they just haven't spent it well. Arsenal are starting to show some signs of buying what are turning out to be some decent players alongside some good young academy players, and rightly or wrongly they've given full backing to the manager to make decisions on his squad and transfers. Some big names have been bombed out in the last couple of years that they haven't been afraid to write off to be fair to them.

I've mentioned previously, for the sum we're looking like being purchased for, I just cannot see how a new owner won't be prepared to continue investing in the club and squad to keep us competitive and challenging for trophies. A drop off could cause a significant impact to the club's value. What is important is when we do spend money, spending it well and getting the right people and players in. We ourselves are guilty just like United and Arsenal of wasting a lot of money on player transfers but our management structure and squad are both better as a starting point.

The Glazers issue are poor management, no investment, using United money to pay their debt and dividend. Kroenke is also a bit similar although he doesn't take money from Arsenal.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,519]

26 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

The Glazers issue are poor management, no investment, using United money to pay their debt and dividend. Kroenke is also a bit similar although he doesn't take money from Arsenal.

Kroenke is married to the woman who inherited WalMart. He delegates everything as far as management to all the sports teams he owns, which is over 10 major teams right now. He collects sports franchises.

[Fulham Broadway 16,920]

1 hour ago, Superblue_1986 said:

The issues that United and Arsenal have found are nothing to do with money in my opinion, it's management.

The Glazer's and Kroenke's shouldn't need to be regularly present at games or at the forefront of the club. Not many football owners are. We haven't done too bad despite Roman barely turning up to watch a game in the last 4 - 5 years. But Roman put a structure of people in place to run the club well in his absence. 

This is what Arsenal and United have lacked.

Arsenal's net transfer spend over the last 5 seasons is over £100m more than ours and United's is well over double. They do spend money, they just haven't spent it well. Arsenal are starting to show some signs of buying what are turning out to be some decent players alongside some good young academy players, and rightly or wrongly they've given full backing to the manager to make decisions on his squad and transfers. Some big names have been bombed out in the last couple of years that they haven't been afraid to write off to be fair to them.

I've mentioned previously, for the sum we're looking like being purchased for, I just cannot see how a new owner won't be prepared to continue investing in the club and squad to keep us competitive and challenging for trophies. A drop off could cause a significant impact to the club's value. What is important is when we do spend money, spending it well and getting the right people and players in. We ourselves are guilty just like United and Arsenal of wasting a lot of money on player transfers but our management structure and squad are both better as a starting point.

One of the shocking yet highly effective catalyst to our cabinet being awash with trophies, has been the casual discarding yet fruitful policy of multiple managers sacked and replaced. The compensation packages alone have run into hundreds of millions - this has been borne on Abramovichs shoulders -something no US hedge fund consortium would consider imo. 

'Jostling for position around Chelsea are men who have already invested heavily in Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Lakers, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, New York Jets, Los Angeles Rams. They are across NFL, baseball, basketball, no different to the Fenway Sports Group, the Glazers or the Kroenke family. They are in it for the money. Sure, the glory, too, but mainly because that is where the money is.

Whoever wins the Chelsea auction will not be content with mid-table. But the days when the owner was less interested in the balance sheet than the trophy cabinet are done.'

[Blues Forever 1,232]

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Superblue 6,372]

29 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

One of the shocking yet highly effective catalyst to our cabinet being awash with trophies, has been the casual discarding yet fruitful policy of multiple managers sacked and replaced. The compensation packages alone have run into hundreds of millions - this has been borne on Abramovichs shoulders -something no US hedge fund consortium would consider imo. 

'Jostling for position around Chelsea are men who have already invested heavily in Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Lakers, Chicago Cubs, Boston Red Sox, New York Jets, Los Angeles Rams. They are across NFL, baseball, basketball, no different to the Fenway Sports Group, the Glazers or the Kroenke family. They are in it for the money. Sure, the glory, too, but mainly because that is where the money is.

Whoever wins the Chelsea auction will not be content with mid-table. But the days when the owner was less interested in the balance sheet than the trophy cabinet are done.'

I think most Chelsea fans are accepting that we will no longer have an owner like Roman. However it should be pointed out that despite the huge amounts that Roman has outlaid on the club, he's actually looking at selling for somewhere around a billion profit. Man City's owners could probably point to a similar position themselves in that the value of the club now outweighs the huge amount of money that has been invested into the club.

Some of the people looking to buy the club, especially foreign investors with no affinity towards Chelsea, could easily look at a club lower down the league as a longer term investment. Newcastle only cost £300m and already have good capacity at their ground. It would take a number of years potentially to build a club up from a lower position but then again, an investment in Chelsea with the stadium, etc is going to be a much longer term investment too.

The premium being paid for Chelsea is the brand. It's already there and already established. But if someone can carry on maintaining the success of the club, potentially growing it commercially (especially in the US if we end up with American investors) and sort out a bigger stadium there's nothing to say that the club couldn't be worth 2 - 3x it's current value in 10-20 years time.

 

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

That's the issue with the stadium. We can expand it to what, 60,000 capacity? in 30-40 years time, 60,000 capacity is going to be small in comparison. With the money that continues to soar in football, we would then need to be thinking about relocating, so that 20,000 stadium development would of been pointless. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,920]

15 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

I think most Chelsea fans are accepting that we will no longer have an owner like Roman. However it should be pointed out that despite the huge amounts that Roman has outlaid on the club, he's actually looking at selling for somewhere around a billion profit. Man City's owners could probably point to a similar position themselves in that the value of the club now outweighs the huge amount of money that has been invested into the club.

Some of the people looking to buy the club, especially foreign investors with no affinity towards Chelsea, could easily look at a club lower down the league as a longer term investment. Newcastle only cost £300m and already have good capacity at their ground. It would take a number of years potentially to build a club up from a lower position but then again, an investment in Chelsea with the stadium, etc is going to be a much longer term investment too.

The premium being paid for Chelsea is the brand. It's already there and already established. But if someone can carry on maintaining the success of the club, potentially growing it commercially (especially in the US if we end up with American investors) and sort out a bigger stadium there's nothing to say that the club couldn't be worth 2 - 3x it's current value in 10-20 years time.

 

Agree that they are buying a successful brand - and they will more than likely be looking to capitalise on that via merch and TV, than winning trophies. There was a reason Chelsea and Citeh were the last to get on board with the Super League - something all the US owned clubs were overly enthusiastic about - The  Super League was all about making a fortune out of football and that's not why the owners of the blue clubs got involved.

26 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

if we end up with American investors) and sort out a bigger stadium there's nothing to say that the club couldn't be worth 2 - 3x it's current value in 10-20 years time.

This maybe true, but it doesnt mean that we will be winning silverware left right and centre, so people better get their heads round that - its negative enough on TC and will only get worse 😜

[Vesper 29,019]

I do NOT want either the Ricketts or Woody Johnson (and he is not even in a consortium, thus at 'only' around £4bn total net worth, he is not nearly wealthy enough)
both have run their teams (Chicago Cubs and the NY Jets, respectively) like shit, especially Johnson, who would be a fucking disaster
and they are all (except for one of the Ricketts women) RW Trumpian lickspittles

[Superblue 6,372]

6 minutes ago, Vesper said:

I do NOT want either the Ricketts or Woody Johnson (and he is not even in a consortium, thus at 'only' around £4bn total net worth, he is not nearly wealthy enough)
both have run their teams (Chicago Cubs and the NY Jets, respectively) like shit, especially Johnson, who would be a fucking disaster
and they are all (except for one of the Ricketts women) RW Trumpian lickspittles

Is there anybody yet linked to us that doesn't have a public political position? I see it's even been reported that Wyss has been supporting political campaigns in the US even when his position I believe doesn't give him the chance to vote over there.

[MoroccanBlue 5,318]

49 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

This maybe true, but it doesnt mean that we will be winning silverware left right and centre, so people better get their heads round that - its negative enough on TC and will only get worse 😜

All the more reason Tuchel needs to be pinned down long term.